Another Airline Assault

[chris]

First of all there are not nearly enough bathrooms. There used to be more but they removed them to pack in more seats to earn more $.

What sense did it make to kick the passenger off the plane? So he broke a rule because he urgently needed the bathroom. He could have been reprimanded and that's it.

 

[chris]

United settles:

http://nypost.com/2017/04/27/bloodied-passenger-settles-with-united/?utm_source=maropost&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=news_alert&utm_content=20170427

 

[wineguy999]

Delta moves into the lead?

https://thepointsguy.com/2017/04/delta-pilot-slaps-woman/

 

[EJLarson]

Delta moves into the lead?

https://thepointsguy.com/2017/04/delta-pilot-slaps-woman/

Sounds horrible at first, but turns out two women friends, travelling together, got into a slugfest leaving the plane on the jetway and were on the ground, wrestling and punching. The pilot broke it up and no one filed charges. Unless something new emerges, sounds like this is a non-event in our litigious world.

 

[chris]

Just for a little contrast....Here's how people travelled on Pan Am in the 1930's. A little more civilized (passengers, crew and atmosphere):

http://www.businessinsider.com/photos-the-luxurious-boeing-314-clipper-2013-8

 

[ben]

Just for a little contrast....Here's how people travelled on Pan Am in the 1930's. A little more civilized (passengers, crew and atmosphere):

http://www.businessi...-clipper-2013-8

This was before airline deregulation in the late 1970's, when prices for routes were essentially set by a government agency. Since you couldn't compete on price, you could only compete on service.

After deregulation, you have a race to the bottom price-wise, and the market did its thing. It turns out that the traveling public is willing to put up with quite a lot to pay less.

A great article on the subject - by Justice Stephen Breyer - can be found here.

 

[chris]

Long before the 1970s. There was no airline competition to speak of -- the alternative was travelling by rail or sea. Air travel was tremendously expensive. To capture an elite market Pan-Am modeled their service on the best trains. They even had sleeper berths virtually indentical to Pullman open section sleepers.

 

[ben]

Long before the 1970s. There was no airline competition to speak of -- the alternative was travelling by rail or sea. Air travel was tremendously expensive. To capture an elite market Pan-Am modeled their service on the best trains. They even had sleeper berths virtually indentical to Pullman open section sleepers.

Correct, at that time airlines were competing not with each other but with other (cheaper) modes of transportation. The result was the same - a strong incentive to up the ante on service.

 

[EJLarson]

After deregulation, you have a race to the bottom price-wise, and the market did its thing. It turns out that the traveling public is willing to put up with quite a lot to pay less.

Opinion only, and for what it's worth:
With dereg and subsequent falling prices, sure, service had to suffer. But the real tradeoff wasn't what people had to pay for travel, it was that with lower prices there came a veritable flood of passengers who, before, couldn't afford to travel at all by air.

The question then becomes: if prices went to their regulated levels ($6k per person, round-trip NY-Rome with current costs) how much less would you travel? Multiply your answer by the number of current travelers, and I'll bet that airport crowding would disappear very quickly.

http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/air-travel-today-is-a-damn-bargain-951705216

All in all (and I hate airports and airplanes) I think today is better, taking everyone's needs and desires into account.

 

[ben]

Opinion only, and for what it's worth:
With dereg and subsequent falling prices, sure, service had to suffer. But the real tradeoff wasn't what people had to pay for travel, it was that with lower prices there came a veritable flood of passengers who, before, couldn't afford to travel at all by air.

The question then becomes: if prices went to their regulated levels ($6k per person, round-trip NY-Rome with current costs) how much less would you travel? Multiply your answer by the number of current travelers, and I'll bet that airport crowding would disappear very quickly.

http://paleofuture.g...rgain-951705216

All in all (and I hate airports and airplanes) I think today is better, taking everyone's needs and desires into account.

Correct, and the aforelinked article by Justice Breyer makes the issue crystal clear:

When an East Boston constituent asked Kennedy, "Senator, why are you holding hearings about airlines? I've never been able to fly," Kennedy replied: "That's why I'm holding the hearings."​

And regarding the current situation, he concludes:

Certainly it shows that every major reform brings about new, sometimes unforeseen, problems. No one foresaw the industry's spectacular growth, with the number of air passengers increasing from 207.5 million in 1974 to 721.1 million last year. As a result, no one foresaw the extent to which new bottlenecks would develop: a flight-choked Northeast corridor, overcrowded airports, delays, and terrorist risks consequently making air travel increasingly difficult. Nor did anyone foresee the extent to which change might unfairly harm workers in the industry.

Still, fares have come down. Airline revenue per passenger mile has declined from an inflation-adjusted 33.3 cents in 1974, to 13 cents in the first half of 2010. In 1974 the cheapest round-trip New York-Los Angeles flight (in inflation-adjusted dollars) that regulators would allow: $1,442. Today one can fly that same route for $268. That is why the number of travelers has gone way up.

So we sit in crowded planes, munch potato chips, flare up when the loudspeaker announces yet another flight delay. But how many now will vote to go back to the "good old days" of paying high, regulated prices for better service? Even among business travelers, who wants to pay "full fare for the briefcase?"​